Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37484096›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2023

Strain, loss of time, or even gain? A systematic review of technology-based work extending and its ambiguous impact on wellbeing, considering its frequency and duration.

Julia Schoellbauer, Martina Hartner-Tiefenthaler, Clare Kelliher

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Julia SchoellbauerDepartment of Occupational, Economic, and Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Martina Hartner-TiefenthalerDepartment of Labor Science and Organization, Institute of Management Science, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria.
Clare KelliherCranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Especially in knowledge-intensive professions, workers engage in work-related communication and access digital work content outside of working hours. Scientific research on technology-based work extending has flourished in recent decades, but yielded inconclusive results about its relationship with workers' wellbeing and focused on different temporal characteristics of the behaviour. Consequently, in this article, we address the question of whether different temporal characteristics of technology-based work extending, such as the frequency and duration of the behaviour, may have different consequences for workers' wellbeing. In the course of a systematic literature review, we analyzed 78 empirical studies published between 2007 and 2021 that investigate the relationship between the self-rated frequency and the self-rated duration of work extending behaviours and 14 wellbeing indicators. Whereas most studies examined the frequency of work extending behaviours and its consequences, only 19 studies examined the effects of its duration. Based on our findings, we propose three effects: The strain effect of frequent work extending, the gain effect of sustained work extending, and the loss-of-private-time effect inherent to work extending and independent from its frequency and duration. Our findings not only provide in-depth information on a widespread contemporary behaviour and its psychological implications, we also reveal research gaps and shed light on behaviours associated with role transitions and thus contribute to boundary theory.

Indexed as

boundary theoryconstant availabilitytechnology-assisted supplemental work (TASW)work interruption nonwork behaviourswork-life conflict

Identifiers

PMID37484096
PMCPMC10361773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.